Talk:2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States courts and judges Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

RFC to establish consensus on reverted edit. edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

WITHDRAWN

Lack of activity and lack of care for this specific rfc. I still stand with my belief that postdlf removal was outright incorrect and his reason for removal was too vague and subjective to justify it, but it's time to end this rfc and move on. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this edit have been reverted by postdlf in accordance with Wikipedia policy and your best judgment? Please answer with support if you agree with its removal and an oppose if you want it reinstated. Within 7 days I'll request a random admin to close this in favor of the side who they believe have the best arguments. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without, so far as I can tell, trying any of the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Because as far as I can tell, none of those things are objectively required to start an rfc. They are merely suggestions. And perhaps there is thirty-day formal rfc on this talk page somewhere that I don't see, but this rfc will close in 7 days as I said here: Within 7 days I'll request a random admin to close this in favor of the side who they believe have the best arguments. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your description was not accurate nor encyclopedic. It was not an improvement to the page. postdlf (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

What exactly was inaccurate about my edit? What did I say that was a lie or even something that was vaguely not unequally true. Surely even you'd concede that weather something was an improvement or encyclopedic is excessively subjective and the exact type of thing consensus is necessary for. Shouldn't other editors determine exactly what counts as such, and what doesn't? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add topic